Year 2 of Orca Task Force: June 3 Meeting

Today I attended the second meeting of year two for Governor Inslee's Orca Task Force. The first meeting of 2019, which occurred in March and which I was unable to attend, happened when most of the Year 1 recommendations were still in limbo during the legislative process. The topic of that meeting was primarily climate change and how it impacts regional orca and salmon recovery. Specifically, for each of the working groups:

Prey - Impacts of climate change will determine which habitats are most effective to restore

Vessels - Emissions, and carbon neutrality issues

Toxins - Which impacts will be amplified, such as new toxin sources being submerged
There will be a report from each of the working groups on these topics at the September meeting.

The meeting started off with a quick recap from a subcommittee considering ways to carry the work of the task force beyond the end of this year. They have several options on the table that the task force will be taking a survey about in the coming months, and which will be discussed in more detail at the next meeting in September.

Next, JT Austin of the governor's office gave a recap of tribal involvement, and defined how true consultation and government to government relations work. With many tribes represented at the table, this seemed like something that definitely should have happened at the beginning of Year 1. The Orca Task Force does not represent official consultation, and the tribes have different rights, authorities, and interests than other groups at the table. I recall many of the tribal representatives abstained from voting on the year one recommendations, deferring to their direct government to government conversations with Inslee and the state. It will be interesting to see how that plays out over the rest of the task force process.

GI James of the Lummi tribe spoke next, and set the tone for the whole day - truly, for the whole cause. Here are some excerpts and summaries of what he said: "We are in a crisis....we cannot be planning for 50 years out." He pointed out that legislators need to be clear that the consequences of saying "no" to recovery actions are extinction. This is not a matter of picking and choosing items off a list based on what's politically expedient. "I'm glad this process is happening," he said, "but it needs a much, much greater emphasis on crisis."

He proposed that a crisis management team be formed to propose a measurable, needed, and funded crisis management plan. "It's a tough, hard set of decisions that need to be made....around this table are inherent conflicts of interest that make it tough to make those decisions. We still think we can have it all.....There's a really tough road ahead, and as much as I appreciate the 36 recommendations [from Year One], most of them are not meaningful actions." He got a loud round of applause after his comments.

Next was a recap of the legislative process and where all the 36 recommendations are currently, with a scorecard based on input from the working groups. Green = on track, yellow = in progress/more work needed, red = no action taken. You can read the scorecard from Team BOLD (Whitney Neugebauer of Whale Scout, Cindy Hansen from Orca Network, myself from the Orca Behavior Institute, and Susan Marie Andersson of Salish Sea Ecosystem Advocates) here; needless to say our rankings were a little different from theirs! One difference was they had 5 actions ranked red; we had 9. We gave status updates on our scorecard of where each action stood, but below are a few additional things I learned today:

Less than 10% of identified salmon habitat restoration projects in the state were funded. While it's great some projects are moving forward, there are A LOT of shovel ready projects that are awaiting money. In the presentation given today, they claimed Recommendation 1 as a "green/yellow" score. Jacques White of Long Live the Kings chimed in to say, given the huge shortfall from the goal of "fully funding" salmon habitat restoration projects, "I would say Recommendation 1 is a red."

Recommendation 6, regarding increased hatchery production, needs to have appropriate monitoring in place in 3-5 years to assess the impacts of this increased production. It was emphasized that wild fish are the long term goal, and we don't want to undermine the efforts to restore wild fish by flooding the system with hatchery fish.

There was a brief update on Recommendation 9 regarding the formation of the Lower Snake River dam stakeholder panel. The executive team is having a meeting later this week regarding finding a neutral third party to facilitate this process, and to discuss options of how the process will work. Rather than being an extended series of meetings, one option is for part of the process to have a neutral third party gather the existing information from all stakeholders, and summarize that information. It was made clear that the panel itself is not a study, nor is it a decision making process. It's goal is to discuss what the impacts would be if the current ongoing federal process does recommend dam breaching.

Recommendations 12 and 13, regarding pinniped control in Puget Sound and on the outer coast, did not get funded in the legislative process, which means that some of the ongoing studies in this area have lost funding. Someone pointed out that not having funding doesn't mean this issue goes away, and numerous task force members expressed an interest in continuing to explore the impact of pinnipeds on salmon, pointing out that it didn't necessarily mean the conclusion was going to be culling.

On Recommendation 22, relating to coordinating with Canada and/or coming up with a similar program to the ECHO ship slowdown efforts, there is in fact a meeting scheduled for the fall to come up with a plan for Washington State to do something similar in its waters, slowing down shipping traffic, cruise ships, and/or ferries in certain areas. (We also learned later the Canadian Haro Strait trial slow down area will extend into Boundary Pass this year.) Yay!

Regarding Recommendation 31 related to stormwater prevention and cleanup, a lot of funding was passed for this action, which is great. But it was pointed out this is only half the battle; we can't just throw money at the issue, but it needs to be targeted to hotspots where cleanups will have the biggest impacts. Luckily it sounds like the toxins working group is motivated to engage on this.

In the "fishbowl" discussion that followed, where the task force members could discuss the update on where the year one recommendations stood and identify gaps or make suggestions, Jacques White of Long Live the Kings took the mic first, and made good use of his time. "What is the relationship between the year one action items and killer whale recovery?" he asked. "If all the dots were green, would that get us 100% of the way to recovery?....All the yellow dots indicate we are not responding to a crisis." This is SUCH a key point. All of these actions are getting debated but there has been no attempt to quantify what their impact might be and how that relates to stated recovery goals. 

He continued to point out that we did great on policy issues in the last legislative session, passing perhaps the best suite of environmental laws in the state since the 1970s. But "we have chronically underfunded salmon recovery for ten years", and he feels relying on a biennial budget from the legislature that competes with other societal needs is not going to generate the needed funds. This underscored a common theme that a steady source of dedicated funding for salmon recovery is needed.

A few moments later Joe Gaydos of the SeaDoc Society took the mic, again echoing many of our sentiments: "If we don't put fish into the mouths of these whales, we will not succeed....are these actions enough to bring back enough salmon?" He seconded Jacques' request for some modeling efforts to look at the impact of the ongoing actions because, "I don't want to wait 10 years to realize we've failed."

The meeting was briefly interrupted by three minutes of sirens relating to some drill for the city of Puyallup, but it seemed someone appropriate given all the talk in the morning of "crisis". Before the lunch break, Joe finished his statement with a "mic drop" worthy comment: "A scientist saying we need more science is like a barber saying you need a haircut, but if we don't take a look and analyze this, next time we will hear a lot more than 3 minutes of sirens."

After lunch, the task force co-chairs allowed me (and some friends, pictured above!) to distribute copies of my book, "Endangered Orcas", to every member of the task force, the staff, and some of the guest representatives from other agencies. THANK YOU to the 20 people who donated enough funds to cover the 54 copies we put directly into the hands of people directly involved in orca and salmon recovery. I do feel compelled to say that every person but one graciously accepted the gift with an interest in learning more; the one exception was task force member Donna Sandstrom of The Whale Trail, who declined the book and said she was not interested. As someone who routinely asks people to reconsider their opinions, my interpretation was this was an unwillingness to be open to even considering material that *might* differ from her own.

Three members of Transport Canada and DFO gave a summary of the recently announced action items in Canada. Some of the immediate/temporary measures include area fisheries closures, expanded shipping traffic slowdowns, the production of an extra 1 million smolts at the Chilliwack hatchery for Fraser River fall run Chinook, and a move to keep small vessels 400m from killer whales within Southern Resident critical habitat. You can read more details here. Other longer term action items are expected within the next year. Again, the question of benchmarks was raised, with regards to how you measure success. Their response was it's something still in discussion. "We're addressing the threats; we don't have the resources to measure impact on recovery." Basically, while they may be able to measure things like reduction in noise related to vessel slowdown trials, there is again the gap of not knowing what that impact might actually be on Southern Resident killer whale recovery.

The main topic of discussion for the rest of the afternoon was population growth. It was pointed out that, like climate change, if the impacts of population growth on the region are not addressed, the rest of the work being discussed may all be for naught. There was a series of four short presentations on the topic of population growth in Washington State. A few notes I took on those:

• We need to look at previous population growth-related targets, how we fared on those, and if we failed, why we failed. For example, a target was set to reduce loss of riparian areas between 2001 and 2011: a target that was not met. If all we do is set a new goal, we may just fail again.
• We need to consider how and where we grow: are critical areas protected, are our footprints small, are we increasing urban population or converting more rural land into urban areas? 
• There are currently 4 million people in the Puget Sound region, and this is projected to grow to 5.8 million by 2050. Models show we will add 33-150 square miles of impervious area (eg buildings, roads) to the region by 2055. The direct connection may not be obvious, but more impervious areas -> more runoff -> more toxins in the Salish Sea -> bad for orcas and salmon
• There are some indicators we are moving in the right direction. One of the fastest growing residential neighborhoods is downtown Seattle, indicating we are growing "up" and not "out". 96% of housing permits are currently going to urban areas - a few decades ago this was more like 70%, with many rural areas being converted into additional housing.
• Vision 2050 and the Regional Open Space Network are two projects working to guide growth and preserve/restore open space and rural areas.
• We need to focus on system (aka ecosystem) level management; we can't leave each city, county, state, etc. to fend for itself when those are artificial barriers (Open Space Network a good example of not looking at political boundaries)

The task force then had time to discuss these presentations in another fishbowl conversation. One interesting topic was the idea of "no net loss" which is often stated as a habitat recovery/preservation goal, but this is a constantly shifting baseline unless more clearly defined, because "no net loss relative to what?" Some advocated for drawing a line in the sand, and saying "no net loss from X year", but Mindy from WEC pointed out that we are beyond "no net loss" scenarios, and we need to talk about goals of "net gain" on habitat. This means we would need to restore more habitat than we are destroying, so there's a net gain on serviceable habitat. I wholeheartedly agree this needs to be the target!

The task force will likely move towards making some high level recommendations regarding climate change and population growth. As Will Hall, the mayor of Shoreline, pointed out: the task force would be better served helping to set performance standards, accountability mechanisms, and a funding source, rather than dictating to jurisdictions exactly what they need to do. Not only is this a more attainable goal for the task force, it allows different solutions to be developed in different areas, which makes sense, because not all areas are facing the same problems. It's obviously a huge topic and it sounds like an additional subgroup will be formed to discuss some of these questions further before the September meeting.

Whew! Are you exhausted just reading all that? It was, as all task force meetings are, a long and tiring day, but I do still take heart in the fact that most if not all the people in the room truly want to do right by the whales and the salmon, even if they have other horses in the race as well. If it was easy to save these whales we would have done it by now. While the process and results may not be as fast or as ideal as many of us would hope, having all these people in the room talking about paths forward to real solutions is leaps and bounds ahead of where we were when the Southern Residents were listed as endangered. More has been done on behalf of the Southern Residents in the last year in both the US and Canada than in the preceding 13 years since their endangered listing. If that's not a sign of moving in the right direction, I don't know what is. This is a marathon, not a sprint, and I appreciate each and every one of you for staying engaged in whatever way you can.

February 16 with the T69Ds and T90s - Plus: Why I Support Whale-Watching

While whales have been around occasionally, I hadn't seen any since the end of October, and for an orcaholic like myself, full whale withdrawal was beginning to set in. I was able to get out on the water for the first time in 2019 last weekend, right towards the end of a long streak of winter weather, meaning there was still snow on the ground, transforming typical scenes like Spieden Island into something completely different.

Steller sea lions on Green Point

Spieden Island under a dusting of snow

We joined several other boats in a search for a group of transient killer whales that had been seen several hours before, and as luck would have it, they were found! It was so great to see some dorsal fins again, and even cooler with the snowy backdrop - a bucket list item for me, to see killer whales in the snow!

We recognized the T90s, but there were other whales present as well, and it wasn't until we got home and pulled out the older but more complete transient ID guide that we realized we had seen the T69Ds - new whales for me!

From left to right T69D1, T69D2, and T69D

The T69s are more often encountered on the western side of Vancouver Island, but like many other transient matrilines, have started venturing into the Salish Sea a bit over the last few years. While we were on scene, the group of 7 whales was in steady travel mode, meaning we often got to see lots of fins at the surface all together!

From left to right: T90B, T90C, T90D, T69D1, T90, and T69D

Before we left, we got some of those classic backlit blows:

And this shot of pelagic cormorants on a log was too fun not to share as well:

It was a refreshing afternoon on the water and spending some time with some killer whales was rejuvenating to the soul, but looming over the encounter was the threat of a moratorium on the viewing of Southern Residents and a permanent increase in viewing distances from 200 to 400 yards on both sides of the border, as Governor Inslee's bill based on an Orca Task Force recommendation moves through the state legislature and vessel working groups in Canada consider the same options. The scientific merits of these recommendations are dubious at best; I can and have gone into the scientific details elsewhere, but the short version is that speed matters a lot more than proximity in terms of noise levels around the whales. I want to take a moment hear to share something else, however: the fact that whale-watching changed my life.

A whale watch trip my family took in Alaska when I was 12 truly redefined the course I would take. It was the first time I saw orcas in the wild and since that day there has been no going back for me. Coming home from that trip, I did  research about other killer whale populations and learned about the Southern Residents. A couple years later we came to the San Juan Islands and it was from a boat I would meet the whales that would become my life's passion. The generation before me was influenced by seeing whales at SeaWorld. My generation has been influenced by seeing whales in the wild.

I am far from the only one who has had a life-changing experience on a whale watch trip. I know this in part from my 6 years working on a boat and seeing these moments occur for people firsthand. I also know this because many of the people in our whale community have had experiences similar to the one I did, where a boat trip to see wild whales was a transformative experience.

Last summer just before J35 and J50 put the Southern Residents in the world spotlight, 12 members of my husband’s family did a tour with Maya's Legacy including myself and my husband....We were fortunate to be one of only two boats on the water with the T124As, but Captain Jeff started talking about how they were seeing less and less of the Residents and why... Coming from me was one thing, but for them to hear what was happening to our beloved Southern Residents from their captain and to see his concern and compassion was huge. They all wanted to know what they could do to help. We never saw Residents the whole week (in early July) that we were there, but the impression was made and I know they all went back to Arizona, Florida and even Italy and told the story of the Residents' plight to their friends and family. - Susan

Some are advocating that people watch whales from shore instead of on a boat, and while some of my best-ever whale encounters have come from shore, the reality is it's not as viable of an option as it was 15 years ago. When I first started visiting the San Juans, the Southern Residents passed the west side of San Juan Island on a near-daily basis during May-September. Now it's not uncommon for weeks to go by during that time with no Southern Residents seen from Lime Kiln. It's just not realistic to ask visitors to see whales from shore when sightings have become so sporadic.

We keep hearing (in large part from people who have never been whale-watching) about how whale watch companies are owned by businessmen out to exploit an endangered species: in it for the money with little regard for the well-being of the whales. I have met many of the owners of Pacific Whale Watch Association companies and I have yet to meet one who falls into this category. They all got into it for the same reason I got into it: out of a love for the whales, the wildlife, and this entire ecosystem. Yes, they make their living at it, but they are constantly assessing moment to moment and year to year what is best for the whales.

I had a trip booked with Maya's Legacy far in advance, had friends/family in town that were going with, and the weekend we went out wound up being 4 days after J35 lost her calf. Captain Jeff told our entire boat full that they were the only orcas in the area, and that we would not be within any kind of optimum viewing distance because of the circumstances. He offered to refund the entire boat. But everyone still wanted to go out on the water regardless and wanted to hear more about what was happening.... We were only out there for a brief time, witnessing through binoculars part of J-Pod foraging near the Fraser. Jeff got emotional while we were there. Some people don't get to see that.  And I guess that’s why it infuriates me to have them vilified and thrown under the bus. Because it seems, to me, the exact opposite, in more cases than not. But because this is also how they make a living, we just hear “exploitation”. - Amanda

I have had conversations with owners, captains, and naturalists over the last 18 years, and seeing firsthand how much they care is what has made me upset about vilifying what they do, scapegoating them as the reason the whales are in the situation they are in, and calling for more restrictions simply because you advocate for any and all orca protections without taking time to become familiar with both the science and the people involved. The whale watch industry has constantly gone above and beyond what is required of them to protect the whales. Do they make mistakes? Yes. Is it a work in progress? Yes. But they are the only industry I can think of that is voluntarily making sacrifices to benefit the whales.

Part of the reason I have been outspoken on this issue is because I've read all the science and I want to advocate for what's best for the whales. My greatest fear is that we will ban or further restrict whale-watching and walk away feeling like we have done something bold to help recover the Southern Residents, when in reality we will have failed yet again to tackle the major, yet more complicated, issues they face. 

Some people have assumed I'm being paid by the whale watch industry to have this opinion, but this is not true - in fact, it is at my own personal expense that I travel to these meetings to make public comment, and it is my own free time I give to writing letters, posting debriefs of the science, and encouraging advocacy. In the interest of full disclosure I did work for a whale-watch company as a naturalist from 2005-2010. I also volunteered on Soundwatch for several summers, both of which gave me perspective. I do go out on whale-watch vessels, with people who are friends and when there is extra space available anyway; this is not in exchange for my advocacy. My opinions and my work are not being compensated for in any way; they are my own, and they are based on my experiences.

Thanks to some common sense prevailing, the vessel bills have been altered to remove the moratorium on viewing of Southern Residents. They include a go-slow zone around the whales, a permitting system on commercial whale watch vessels, and an increase to a 300 yard viewing distance on Southern Residents. Ten years ago when the first vessel regulations went into place, vessels were the focus for years, because they were the low-hanging fruit: the easiest thing to address. Since then, we have still failed to seriously address the more major risk factors of salmon abundance and contaminants. Now that we have spent months debating vessels again, my hope is that we can finally move on. If we are serious about Southern Resident killer whale recovery, this conversation can no longer be about vessels, vessels, vessels. We must put that risk factor aside and finally talk about what can be done on the big ticket issues, even if they are complex and the sacrifices painful. 

Orca Task Force Meeting #5: What the draft recommendations look like now

Truck parked outside the Landmark Convention Center in Tacoma on October 17, Day 1 of the two-day task force meeting

With another task force meeting – this one a 2-day marathon – in the books, I thought it would be worth posting an update about how the package of draft recommendations is looking. I recognize that this process is frustrating and moving slower than many would hope for, but it really is a positive move for the Southern Residents overall to have all these interest groups at the table discussing the difficult topics and moving at a pretty rapid pace.

The basis for discussion over the last two days was an updated draft package of recommendations prepared by the steering committee based on the most supported recommendations according to the task force members and public survey results, the most effective recommendations according to the working groups, and feedback from direct conversations with each task force member in the week preceding this meeting. To make things even more confusing, all the action items have been renumbered from the survey, with many items having been merged and some deleted. While we and they were told actions could still be added or deleted from the package during the meeting, in reality the items in this package didn’t seem to change much over the course of the meeting. Instead, the discussions focused more on wording and fine-tuning the action items. While there is still more refinement by the steering committee, another round of public and task force comment, and a final task force meeting (which is scheduled to focus on further discussion of the more controversial action items), I thought it would be worth posting an update of what looks likely to be moving forward at this time. It’s unclear how much more in terms of prioritization will happen; actions will likely still be ranked to some degree, but it’s not clear if the task force will pitch everything to the governor, or will try to narrow it down to a “Top 10” or something like that.

Here is a summary of the actions as they stand now, down from ~50 to ~30. New recommendations numbers (likely the numbers that will be referred to during the upcoming public comment period survey) and wording is taken from the draft report, with old action item numbers from the last survey at the end of each bullet point.

Goal 1: Increase Chinook Abundance

1.     Significantly increase investment in restoration and acquisition of habitat in areas where Chinook stocks most benefit the SRKWs, including mandating additional funding to Chinook and forage fish habitat restoration projects, emphasizing large-scale estuary restoration programs,  and removing barriers in areas of high benefit to Chinook (such as Middle Fork Nooksack and Pilchuck dams). Formerly Habitat Recommendations 1 and 2 and Hydropower Recommendation 2.

2.     Immediately fund acquisition and restoration of nearshore habitat to increase the abundance of forage fish for salmon sustenance. Formerly Forage Fish Recommendation 1.

3.     Enforce laws that protect habitat. Formerly Habitat Recommendations 3 and 4.

4.     Have the legislature immediately amend existing statutes to provide stronger protections for Chinook and forage fish habitat. Formerly Habitat Recommendations 3 and 5.

5.     Have state agencies develop and encourage voluntary actions to protect habitat, including providing financial assistance to cooperative conservation programs. Formerly Habitat Recommendation 7.

6.     Increase hatchery production to benefit SRKW in methods consistent with wild fish conservation, available habitat, and existing recovery plans. Formerly Hatchery Recommendation 1C.

7.     Prepare a strategy to re-establish salmon above existing dams, including the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams. Formerly Hydropower Recommendation 1.

8.     Increase allowable dissolved gas allowances in the Columbia Basin from 115 to 125% to match the Oregon standard, advocating for increased spill over Columbia and Snake River dams. Formerly Hydropower Recommendation 4.

9.     Support full implementation of the 2019-2028 Pacific Salmon Treaty. Formerly Harvest Recommendation 3.

10.  Reduce Chinook bycatch in all west coast commercial fisheries. Formerly Harvest Recommendation 2.

11.  Convene an independent science panel to assess if pinniped predation is a limiting factor for Chinook in Puget Sound and along the Outer Coast of Washington, then convene stakeholders to evaluate potential management actions. Formerly Predation Recommendation 1B.

12.  Support authorization to more effectively manage pinniped predation of salmon on the Columbia River. Formerly Predation Recommendation 2A.

13.  Reduce population of non-native predator fish species that prey upon or compete with Chinook. Formerly Hydropower Recommendation 3.

14.  Monitor forage fish populations to inform decision on harvest and management actions to support increased Chinook abundance. Formerly Forage Fish Recommendation 4.

15.  Fund the Puget Sound zooplankton sampling program, which will help forecast forage fish and Chinook abundances and inform management decisions. Formerly Forage Fish Recommendation 3.

A.    Convene a stakeholder panel. Formerly Hydropower Recommendation 5B.

Unnumbered due to having limited support at the beginning of the task force meeting, but based on discussion, outside conversations, and the continued public pressure, I suspect this action may make the final report. I know it’s not as bold as some of us would hope, but it’s a hell of a lot more than we were looking at during the beginning of this process, when Snake River dams weren’t even being mentioned at the meeting. Even if something bolder were on the table, it would for sure be tied up in court until mitigation solutions are found for all stakeholders, so this process is essential. I finally got the opportunity to present the 600,000+ signature petition during the public comment period on the first evening, and it made an impact on the task force members. The number of supporters was brought up several times during Day 2, including by a task force member who was seemingly against breaching the dams but stated that, given the public outcry for action, the task force must move forward with a stakeholder panel to address the issue further.

Goal 2: Decrease Disturbance of Orcas from Vessels

16.  Establish a statewide “Go-Slow” zone bubble for all small vessels within half a nautical mile of orcas. Formerly Vessel Recommendation 1.

17.  Establish a limited-entry whale-watching permit system for commercial whale-watching and commercial kayak groups. Details of implementation still unclear. Formerly Vessel Recommendation 4.

18.  Increase and improve boater education on Be Whale Wise regulations and guidelines. Potentially include a mandatory marine endorsement fee for saltwater boater registration in the state. Formerly Vessel Recommendation 5B.

19.  Increase enforcement capacity to fully enforce vessel regulations. Formerly Vessel Recommendation 2.

20.  Discourage use of echo sounders and underwater transducers within 1km of orcas. (Updated from switching echo sounders from 50kHz to 200kHz because apparently changing the settings doesn’t actually stop the pings at 50kHz.) Formerly Vessel Recommendation 3.

21.  Implement shipping noise-reduction initiatives and monitoring programs, coordinating with Canada. Formerly Vessel Recommendations 5 and 6.

22.  Accelerate the transition from Washington State Ferries to quieter vessels and reduce speeds when SRKWs are present. Formerly Vessel Recommendations 9 and 18.

23.  Reduce threat of oil spills in the region, including requiring escort tugs, updating oil spill prevention, etc. Formerly Vessel Recommendation 13.

B.    No-Go Zone of some sort – was not on the initial list of recommendations at this meeting but was brought back to the table; no consensus reached on where, when, what, how, etc. but will be discussed further at November meeting.

Goal 3: Reduce SRKW Exposure to Contaminants

24.  Accelerate implementation of the ban of PCBs in the state. Formerly Contaminant Recommendation 1.

25.  Identify, prioritize, and take action on chemicals that impact orcas and their prey. Formerly Contaminant Recommendations 2 and 3.

26.  Reduce stormwater threats and accelerate clean-up of harmful toxics. Formerly Contaminant Recommendations 4, 7, and 8.

27.  Improve effectiveness, implementation, and enforcement of NPDES permits. Formerly Contaminant Recommendations 5 and 6.

28.  Increase monitoring of toxic substances in marine waters and create and deploy adaptive management strategies. Formerly Contaminant Recommendation 9.

Additional Recommendations

29.  Provide sustainable funding for implementation.

30.  Continue research, science, and monitoring to inform adaptive management.

31.  Monitor progress of implementation and needed enhancements during Year 2.

Also, here’s a summary of the main themes during the public comments, indicating the number of speakers on each topic:

Lower Snake River dam removal – 23

Bold action in general – 12

Moratorium on whale-watching – 4

Against any restrictions on fisheries – 2

Vessel impacts – 2

Pro-dams – 2

Fishing moratorium – 2

Oil export – 2

Puget Sound habitat restoration – 1

Habitat “net increase” – 1

Unfair task force process – 1

Against proposed asphalt plant – 1

On one hand, it feels like a lot of jargon that could very well be bolder, will not all be implemented, and will be watered down in the legislature. On the other hand, we are potentially looking at a package that will increase funding for barrier removal (including dams) and ready-to-go habitat restoration projects; increase spill over dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers; take Snake River dam removal discussions to the next level with a much-needed stakeholder panel that will have to wrap up in less than a year; reduce harvest, reduce bycatch, and increase hatchery production of Chinook which will all result in more fish in the water; activate major toxin cleanup and redevelopment of stormwater hotspots; modernize an oil spill response plan; and quiet the waters around the whales by reducing speeds of shipping traffic, ferries, and small vessels. Stated that way, it almost feels like we may be on the right track after all.

In addition to calling Governor Inslee’s office (360-902-4111) and continuing to advocate for his support of near-term removal of the four Lower Snake River dams and full-funding of all salmon habitat recovery programs in the state, the next time your voice is needed is October 24-29 when another public survey and comment period will be open on these updated and further refined recommendations. Stay tuned, as we will also be helping to provide another survey guide, simplified if need be.

-->

Summary of Task Force Meeting #3 in Wenatchee

Today we attended the third meeting of the governor's Southern Resident Killer Whale Task Force in Wenatchee. It was a jam-packed day, with constant activity from 9 AM to 5 PM, where members of the public were allowed to observe and then give brief 2-minute comments if desired at the end. In addition to the task force there have been three working groups, one for each of the three risk factors: prey, toxins, and vessel effects. These working groups have been charged with coming up with potential actions for the task force to recommend and today was the day they reported back to get feedback from the larger task force. (For clarity, some members of the task force are on some of the working groups, but not all task force members are on a working group. There are also additional experts and interest groups on the working groups who are not on the task force.)

These ribbons were handed out by members of the Orca-Salmon Alliance to members of the public; they succinctly summarize what most of us where there to advocate for

I have to say, my initial reaction to the task force process was not a positive one. Here were my concerns that I jotted down while observing the process:

• There are too many people at the table. While it's noble to want to include all interested parties, there are 40 people on the task force. You are never going to reach a consensus, or if you do, it's going to be a very watered down version of what probably needs to be done. While there are some great voices at the table, a task force half that size would, I think, be a lot more effective.
• The lack of awareness of the facts by some people on the task force was both shocking and unsettling. At the beginning of the process, there was someone on the prey working group that didn't know there were killer whales that only ate fish. There was someone who walked in the room today thinking they only relied on Fraser River salmon. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Was there some general education from the experts done at the beginning of the task force? I suspect not.
• While not pervasive, some people seemed very intent on focusing on short-term actions only. The governor even called in to the meeting today and stressed the importance of needing both the short-term actions and somehow addressing the long-term challenges. We can't do just one or the other.
• I was really disturbed early in the day when one of the speakers said a goal from the day was deciding which action items "the task force is comfortable moving forward with". We are WAY past the point of having the luxury of comfort - this is not about doing what's easy so we feel like we tried. I did hear at least one task force member say their job is to tackle the controversial issues - I hope that voice is heard.
• There was a strong theme of wanting to base recommendations on science, which is good. But I also heard a lot of recommendations for further study. By all means we should keep studying some of these things to understand them better, but we know what the core issues are. A lot of really great science on all fronts has been done in the last few decades: use it!

Here in brief summary form are the main actions that were brought to the table in the morning, which were discussed in the break out groups. Everyone self-selected which break out group to go to first, where they had an hour of discussion. Then the other three topics (prey was split into two, with vessels and toxins being the other groups) rotated through in 30 minute sessions. It ended with 30 minutes back to review your initial topic with everyone else's feedbacks. The detailed matrices created by the working groups that were handed out today are available on the governor's website here; just scroll down to the August 7 meeting to find the links. I encourage you to read the ones of interest as the documents go into much greater detail, including ranking the projected effectiveness, affordability, and ease of implementation of each action. I've used the notations from the handouts so you can cross-reference my notes to theirs if you want. If something about the action item was notable to me during the discussion or reporting back at the end of the break out sessions, I've added that in italics. Please note this is my take on what I heard - please refer to the documents at the link above for specifics. Bear with me, this is long; if you don't want to read a summary of all the action items, skip down to below the solid line for my thoughts on the ends of the day and what actions we need to take next.

Prey #1: Hatchery, Harvest, and Predation 

Hatcheries

Action A: Increase hatchery production for the Southern Residents using "best practices" to minimize impacts on wild salmon. Hatchery production of coho and Chinook in the state of Washington has declined from 335 million fish in 1992 to 175 million fish in 2016. Moving forward on this action was basically unanimously supported

Action B: Try new strategies at hatcheries/use broader approaches for raising fish with goals of providing more fish to whales rather than just fish for harvest (eg, possibly holding fish until they are larger before release). Unanimous support to proceed with this one.

Harvest

Action A: Further limit Chinook harvest in specific areas of importance for Southern Resident foraging. Need to specify if harvest means commercial, recreational, tribal, or all; right now it means all. Does it make sense to limit harvest in one area if those fish might just be caught elsewhere? Update to Pacific Salmon Commission for Chinook is including reduced harvest overall for US/Canada. Mixed support for this one.

Action B: Subsidize or compensate fishers not to fish. Low support overall due to difficulty to implement; you can't pay tribes not to fish.

Action C: Reduce unintended bycatch. Outside the state's ability to directly influence, but Pacific Salmon Commission just completed a two year process addressing this. The main issue is with coastal trawlers.

Action D: Negotiate fishing reductions in Alaska and Canada to allow more fish to reach Washington waters. Support for this in conjunction with the Pacific Salmon Commission recommendations that are currently pending.

Action E: Reduce marine harvest and transfer opportunity to terminal fisheries. Basically no support for this as it won't work to implement due to existing fishing agreements.

Action F: Implement size limits on Chinook caught, in part to allow the largest fish to reach the whales or spawn. Low support for this; catch and release works on some species but mortality is high for salmon.

Predation

Action A: Remove/alter artificial habitats and breeding structures for pinniped and bird predators. Neutral response - does it really work?Maybe in certain locatiosns, but it might just move the problem.

Action B: Lethal removal of fish, birds, and/or pinnipeds. More support for fish (mostly non-native salmon eaters, but at least one native species as well) than for birds and pinnipeds. Not surprisingly some strongly in support, but many skeptical of effectiveness.

Action C: Lethal removal of fish, birds, and/or pinnipeds to establish new baseline populations in the state. This literally meant trying to make these recovered populations return to some level between historic lows and present populations. This got low support overall.

Action D: Employ non-lethal hazing or exclusion techniques. Everyone loved this idea but no one knows of a way where it works effectively and long-term.

Overall, some people wanted predator killing off the table while some thought we had enough information to recommend proceeding with lethal predator control. The general sense was to move ahead carefully with synthesizing existing data and possibly trying a pilot program to assess effectiveness.

Prey #2: Hydro, Habitat, and Forage Fish

Hydropower

Action A: Recommend that Department of Ecology adjust gas caps (dissolved oxygen levels) on Snake and Columbia Rivers to allow adjustable spill regimes as needed to benefit Chinook. They thought more info was needed here. Washington has lower caps than Oregon. Need to raise gas caps to increase spill.

Action B: Review/revise standard for juvenile salmon survival in rivers at dams

Action C: Increase survival at predation hot spots near dams. Essentially culling predators at dams specifically.

Action D: Improve fish screens to provide safer fish passage.

Action E: Prioritize and fund the re-establishment of runs into currently blocked areas

Action F: Remove dams in locations that most benefit Chinook. There aren't many comments on the others ones because most of the discussion was one this one, which was very vague at the beginning of the day! The recognized most of the passion was here. They plan to make one action item specifically for the Lower Snake River dams and one for all other dams. They want a list of prioritized dams sorted into categories (based on size, etc.), as some smaller dams are shovel-ready to be removed with little or no opposition, while others are more controversial.

Habitat

Action A: Increase implementation/enforcement of existing habitat regulations

Action B:  Enhance habitat protection regulations

Action C: Acquire important Chinook habitat

Action D: Accelerate habitat restoration by increasing funding to address current priorities

Action E: Create/bolster habitat preservation and restoration incentives for land owners

All actions had broad support, but with acknowledgement that with continued population growth and development we are going backwards (destroying more than we are restoring). We all want this, but the "how" is hard; removing blockages like culverts provide the most bang for our buck.

Forage Fish

Action A:  Increase forage fish populations through habitat restoration and protection. Broad support, but which fish (sandlance, herring, surf smelt, anchovies, sardines), and how are they prioritized?

Action B: Increase forage fish populations through habitat reductions. There is a directed herring fishery in Puget Sound but biggest contributor to forage fish declines is nearshore habitat loss. 

Contaminants

 This group really had their efforts dialed in, in part because they had already formed and were having these discussions before the task force was formed. There was broad support for every one of these actions.

Action 1: Reform federal Toxic Substances Control Act to prevent new chemical threats. The "reaching for the moon" ask; would likely take 15-20 years but worth getting ahead of the game.

Action 2: Ban all PCBs in consumer products through existing state policy tools. While PCBs are banned in the state, they are still allowed through "inadvertant production", particularly in pigments and dyes.

Action 3: Prioritize chemicals for their likely impact on Southern Residents, then develop and implement action plans to reduce those impacts. This is under state control so is more doable, but is more a matter of resources.

Action 4: Provide incentives and swap-outs to reduce existing (legacy) toxic sources. There are still sources out there of chemicals that have been banned - let's remove them. Some will be easier than others, such as creosote pilings on used/unused structures.

Action 5: Improve NPDES permit process. This would basically set new water quality standards for run-off, including stormwater.

Action 6: Reduce stormwater threats at existing hotspots. Two known hotspots are the Snohomish and Duwamish River basins.

Action 7: Prioritize and accelerate nearshore habitat restoration/clean-up efforts that will benefit Southern Residents.

Action 8: Support monitoring and new science. There are many chemicals we still don't know much about; let's not replace problem chemicals with something just as bad or worse.

Vessels

Small vessels (<65 b="" feet="">

1. Establish no-wake or slow-go zone within a certain distance of killer whales to reduce noise. Broad support; reflects what Pacific Whale Watch Association is already doing.

2. Encourage and move towards requiring small vessels to avoid using echo sounders and other underwater transcdcued at the 50-kHz setting when near Southern Residents.

Whale-watch vessels

3. Establish a limited entry permit system for commercial whale-watching in the state

4. Require commercial whale watchers to shut down instead of idle near Southern Residents. Put on hold because no science to show being at idle is better or worse than starting and stopping.

5. Establish a permit system for recreational whale watching. Low support - what would this even look like? Hard to establish, enforce - most recreational boaters watch whales opportunistically. 

Large vessels (>65 feet)

6. Expand Washington State collaboration in the Port of Vancouver's ECHO program; many options including trying to give professional mariners a head's up when whales are likely in the area so they can slow down. This is the major action item related to shipping traffic and it got broad support overall.  

7. Request action is taken to assess potential impacts of any increased vessel traffic due to any Puget Sound pipeline expansion. Needs to be better defined.

8. Request action is taken to reduce impacts of any potential increased vessel traffic due to the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, including dedicated regional tug for emergency oil spill response.

No-Go Zones

9. Expedite a no-go zone process. Some felt that enough talking had been done about this and it should be implemented. Others felt it was a lot of work for not a lot of benefit, or, "A static solution to a dynamic problem". A moving slow-go zone was identified by some (correctly, in my not so humble opinion) as a bigger priority.

10. Create a 400 yard "bubble" around the Southern Residents (ie double 200 yard rule). This found broad support from the task force, but even members of the working group have acknowledged there is no science to show moving from 200 to 400 yards has any benefit on killer whales. They want to apply this to all orcas. To me, this is a "feel good" solution to those not involved that would have no real benefit to the whales and would dramatically reduce the whale-watching experience.

11. Establish a voluntary regular engine shut down for all small vessels in the vicinity of the Southern Residents for 20 minutes every hour. Not much support for this at all.

Permit Applications

12. Require all permits for any of a variety of activities that would increase vessel traffic to address potential impacts to Southern Residents.

Ferries

13. Support/accelerate moving of Washington State Ferry (WSF) fleet to quieter designs

14. Encourage WSF fleet in Puget Sound to slow down in fall months when Southern Residents are present

15. Encourage private and county ferries to slow down in the presence of Southern Residents

16. Fund a WSF noise assessment project

All the ferry recommended actions had broad support

_______________________________________________________________________

Whew, did you get all that? If you've been advocating for dam breaching and you just see it vaguely mentioned on the very last action item under hydropower and you are frustrated by that, you are not alone. The best part of the day, in my opinion, was the public comment session, where more than 30 people used their 2-minutes to give the task force their thoughts. 

By the way, the first and last parts of the day were live streamed and can be watched at the links below; the break out sessions were not streamed.

Introductions, call from the governor, and intro presentations from the three working groups can be seen here.

Summary of break out discussions and public comments can be seen here. 

If you watch the public comments, you will see that the public very much wanted breaching the four Lower Snake River dams to be immediately addressed. During the lunch break, the Orca-Salmon Alliance presented the task force co-chairs with a petition signed by 43,000 people asking for bold actions, including addressing the Lower Snake River dams. Ocean was also present and shared another petition with 19,000 signatures asking for Lower Snake River dam breaching. Governor Inslee said it was on the table, and we have to make sure it stays there and gets more attention than possibly being associated with "Action F" buried on a working group matrix. 

The public - that means you! - came across as educated and with their priorities straight, which was the one part of the day that gave me hope. All of our calls, e-mails, and comments ARE changing the conversation, and we have to keep it up. I told the task force in my public comments that we the public will not let them off the hook on the controversial action items. So keep the pressure on!

Continued calls to Governor Inslee's office are very important (360-902-4111), and you do not need to be from the state of Washington. Tell them you support breaching the four Lower Snake River dams, and that it is not a federal issue - the science is done and dam breaching could start this year with support from Inslee, Murray, and Cantwell. For Washington residents, call Murray (206-553-5545) and Cantwell (206-220-6400) too - they have not released statements on the Snake River dams and we heard today they're closely watching the public attention on the issue and may make a statement in the near future, so keep those calls going. Tell them you want to hear publicly what their opinion is on saving the endangered Southern Residents and on breaching the four Lower Snake River dams.

Finally, tell the task force what you think! They have recently launched the ability to submit public comments NOW via their website, before they release their draft proposal on October 1. Check out their online survey here. Tell them which of the above action items you support and don't support and why, and which actions you want to see on the table that aren't there. This is a very critical time to give input as they will be refining their list of actions at the August 28 meeting in Anacortes - and please attend that meeting too if you can! There was a great turnout here in Wenatchee but we know there will be even more people in Anacortes; let them know we are watching, see the process for yourself, and prepare a short statement to share about what's most important to you during the public comment time. 

I'll admit, I started the day disappointed with what I was seeing, but I ended hopeful at the change public outcry can induce. J35 and her calf turned the spotlight on this issue in a way no human could have; we have to seize that momentum and help the task force realize they need to do what should have been done 20 years ago.